Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 431

control, N = 211

treatment, N = 221

p-value2

age

43

50.98 ± 12.72 (25 - 72)

50.32 ± 12.92 (25 - 72)

51.60 ± 12.79 (32 - 72)

0.747

gender

43

0.449

f

29 (67%)

13 (62%)

16 (73%)

m

14 (33%)

8 (38%)

6 (27%)

occupation

43

0.978

full_time

5 (12%)

3 (14%)

2 (9.1%)

homemaker

2 (4.7%)

1 (4.8%)

1 (4.5%)

other

2 (4.7%)

0 (0%)

2 (9.1%)

part_time

7 (16%)

4 (19%)

3 (14%)

retired

13 (30%)

6 (29%)

7 (32%)

self_employ

2 (4.7%)

1 (4.8%)

1 (4.5%)

t_and_e

2 (4.7%)

1 (4.8%)

1 (4.5%)

unemploy

10 (23%)

5 (24%)

5 (23%)

marital

43

0.892

divore

5 (12%)

3 (14%)

2 (9.1%)

married

8 (19%)

3 (14%)

5 (23%)

none

24 (56%)

12 (57%)

12 (55%)

seperation

3 (7.0%)

2 (9.5%)

1 (4.5%)

widow

3 (7.0%)

1 (4.8%)

2 (9.1%)

edu

43

0.399

bachelor

13 (30%)

5 (24%)

8 (36%)

diploma

7 (16%)

5 (24%)

2 (9.1%)

hd_ad

2 (4.7%)

1 (4.8%)

1 (4.5%)

postgraduate

4 (9.3%)

2 (9.5%)

2 (9.1%)

primary

4 (9.3%)

1 (4.8%)

3 (14%)

secondary_1_3

2 (4.7%)

0 (0%)

2 (9.1%)

secondary_4_5

10 (23%)

7 (33%)

3 (14%)

secondary_6_7

1 (2.3%)

0 (0%)

1 (4.5%)

fam_income

43

0.881

10001_12000

3 (7.0%)

1 (4.8%)

2 (9.1%)

12001_14000

1 (2.3%)

1 (4.8%)

0 (0%)

14001_16000

4 (9.3%)

1 (4.8%)

3 (14%)

16001_18000

2 (4.7%)

1 (4.8%)

1 (4.5%)

18001_20000

1 (2.3%)

1 (4.8%)

0 (0%)

20001_above

9 (21%)

6 (29%)

3 (14%)

2001_4000

5 (12%)

2 (9.5%)

3 (14%)

4001_6000

6 (14%)

3 (14%)

3 (14%)

6001_8000

5 (12%)

3 (14%)

2 (9.1%)

8001_10000

3 (7.0%)

1 (4.8%)

2 (9.1%)

below_2000

4 (9.3%)

1 (4.8%)

3 (14%)

medication

43

37 (86%)

17 (81%)

20 (91%)

0.412

onset_duration

43

16.62 ± 12.51 (0 - 56)

17.90 ± 14.48 (1 - 56)

15.40 ± 10.48 (0 - 35)

0.519

onset_age

43

34.36 ± 12.65 (15 - 62)

32.43 ± 11.43 (16 - 55)

36.20 ± 13.73 (15 - 62)

0.334

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 431

control, N = 211

treatment, N = 221

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

43

3.44 ± 1.26 (1 - 5)

3.38 ± 1.32 (1 - 5)

3.50 ± 1.22 (1 - 5)

0.761

recovery_stage_b

43

18.40 ± 2.67 (9 - 23)

18.43 ± 2.93 (9 - 23)

18.36 ± 2.48 (14 - 23)

0.938

ras_confidence

43

30.70 ± 4.78 (19 - 40)

30.24 ± 4.56 (19 - 40)

31.14 ± 5.05 (22 - 39)

0.545

ras_willingness

43

12.30 ± 2.05 (7 - 15)

12.29 ± 1.82 (9 - 15)

12.32 ± 2.30 (7 - 15)

0.959

ras_goal

43

17.67 ± 3.08 (12 - 24)

17.57 ± 3.09 (12 - 23)

17.77 ± 3.13 (12 - 24)

0.833

ras_reliance

43

13.44 ± 3.11 (8 - 20)

13.24 ± 2.81 (8 - 18)

13.64 ± 3.43 (8 - 20)

0.680

ras_domination

43

10.16 ± 2.43 (3 - 15)

10.95 ± 1.72 (8 - 15)

9.41 ± 2.79 (3 - 14)

0.036

symptom

43

29.67 ± 10.20 (14 - 56)

28.86 ± 8.62 (14 - 45)

30.45 ± 11.66 (15 - 56)

0.614

slof_work

43

22.98 ± 5.03 (10 - 30)

23.43 ± 4.79 (15 - 30)

22.55 ± 5.32 (10 - 30)

0.571

slof_relationship

43

26.33 ± 5.81 (11 - 35)

26.95 ± 5.89 (15 - 35)

25.73 ± 5.82 (11 - 35)

0.496

satisfaction

43

21.23 ± 6.88 (5 - 30)

19.86 ± 6.71 (5 - 29)

22.55 ± 6.93 (5 - 30)

0.204

mhc_emotional

43

11.58 ± 3.55 (4 - 18)

11.14 ± 2.97 (6 - 17)

12.00 ± 4.05 (4 - 18)

0.435

mhc_social

43

14.93 ± 4.80 (6 - 25)

15.19 ± 4.55 (8 - 25)

14.68 ± 5.13 (6 - 23)

0.733

mhc_psychological

43

22.28 ± 6.22 (6 - 36)

21.57 ± 6.18 (10 - 33)

22.95 ± 6.33 (6 - 36)

0.473

resilisnce

43

16.95 ± 4.71 (6 - 25)

16.86 ± 4.45 (6 - 24)

17.05 ± 5.04 (7 - 25)

0.897

social_provision

43

13.67 ± 3.29 (5 - 20)

13.43 ± 2.96 (8 - 20)

13.91 ± 3.64 (5 - 19)

0.638

els_value_living

43

17.14 ± 3.04 (5 - 23)

16.86 ± 2.17 (12 - 20)

17.41 ± 3.71 (5 - 23)

0.558

els_life_fulfill

43

13.07 ± 3.38 (4 - 18)

12.19 ± 3.37 (5 - 17)

13.91 ± 3.25 (4 - 18)

0.096

els

43

30.21 ± 5.78 (9 - 40)

29.05 ± 4.68 (20 - 36)

31.32 ± 6.57 (9 - 40)

0.201

social_connect

43

26.84 ± 10.18 (8 - 48)

27.05 ± 9.29 (8 - 45)

26.64 ± 11.18 (8 - 48)

0.897

shs_agency

43

14.19 ± 4.82 (3 - 20)

13.71 ± 4.43 (3 - 20)

14.64 ± 5.23 (3 - 20)

0.537

shs_pathway

43

16.70 ± 3.73 (4 - 22)

16.19 ± 3.23 (9 - 21)

17.18 ± 4.16 (4 - 22)

0.390

shs

43

30.88 ± 7.90 (7 - 42)

29.90 ± 7.22 (16 - 41)

31.82 ± 8.56 (7 - 42)

0.434

esteem

43

12.49 ± 1.24 (10 - 15)

12.67 ± 1.06 (10 - 14)

12.32 ± 1.39 (10 - 15)

0.364

mlq_search

43

15.21 ± 3.38 (3 - 21)

15.19 ± 3.31 (6 - 21)

15.23 ± 3.53 (3 - 20)

0.972

mlq_presence

43

13.67 ± 4.04 (3 - 21)

14.14 ± 2.99 (6 - 19)

13.23 ± 4.87 (3 - 21)

0.464

mlq

43

28.88 ± 6.77 (6 - 41)

29.33 ± 6.12 (12 - 40)

28.45 ± 7.45 (6 - 41)

0.676

empower

43

19.95 ± 4.33 (6 - 28)

20.10 ± 3.67 (11 - 24)

19.82 ± 4.96 (6 - 28)

0.837

ismi_resistance

43

14.93 ± 2.77 (5 - 20)

14.95 ± 2.16 (12 - 19)

14.91 ± 3.31 (5 - 20)

0.960

ismi_discrimation

43

11.19 ± 3.16 (5 - 19)

12.00 ± 3.00 (5 - 17)

10.41 ± 3.19 (5 - 19)

0.100

sss_affective

43

9.49 ± 4.28 (3 - 18)

9.95 ± 3.46 (3 - 15)

9.05 ± 4.98 (3 - 18)

0.494

sss_behavior

43

9.49 ± 4.45 (3 - 18)

10.19 ± 4.24 (3 - 18)

8.82 ± 4.64 (3 - 18)

0.318

sss_cognitive

43

7.77 ± 4.01 (3 - 18)

7.48 ± 3.63 (3 - 15)

8.05 ± 4.41 (3 - 18)

0.647

sss

43

26.74 ± 11.84 (9 - 54)

27.62 ± 9.89 (9 - 44)

25.91 ± 13.63 (9 - 54)

0.642

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.38

0.263

2.86, 3.90

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.119

0.368

-0.603, 0.841

0.748

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.775

0.547

-0.296, 1.85

0.169

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.043

0.914

-1.75, 1.84

0.962

Pseudo R square

0.058

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

18.4

0.583

17.3, 19.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.065

0.815

-1.66, 1.53

0.937

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.679

0.474

-1.61, 0.251

0.195

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.54

0.820

-0.068, 3.15

0.102

Pseudo R square

0.012

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

30.2

1.037

28.2, 32.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.898

1.450

-1.94, 3.74

0.539

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.510

0.852

-1.16, 2.18

0.568

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.044

1.472

-2.84, 2.93

0.977

Pseudo R square

0.010

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

12.3

0.442

11.4, 13.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.032

0.618

-1.18, 1.24

0.958

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.586

0.667

-1.89, 0.722

0.404

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.677

1.143

-1.56, 2.92

0.568

Pseudo R square

0.010

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.6

0.673

16.3, 18.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.201

0.941

-1.64, 2.04

0.832

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.045

0.482

-0.900, 0.989

0.928

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.073

0.833

-1.56, 1.71

0.933

Pseudo R square

0.001

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.2

0.683

11.9, 14.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.398

0.955

-1.47, 2.27

0.679

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.033

0.496

-0.940, 1.01

0.948

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.739

0.858

-0.943, 2.42

0.416

Pseudo R square

0.009

ras_domination

(Intercept)

11.0

0.502

9.97, 11.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.54

0.702

-2.92, -0.168

0.033

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.969

0.940

-2.81, 0.874

0.318

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

3.01

1.594

-0.113, 6.13

0.075

Pseudo R square

0.102

symptom

(Intercept)

28.9

2.254

24.4, 33.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.60

3.151

-4.58, 7.77

0.615

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.27

2.240

-5.66, 3.12

0.587

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.64

3.865

-5.93, 9.22

0.683

Pseudo R square

0.010

slof_work

(Intercept)

23.4

1.097

21.3, 25.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.883

1.533

-3.89, 2.12

0.568

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.55

0.617

-2.76, -0.340

0.040

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.37

1.067

-0.718, 3.47

0.239

Pseudo R square

0.012

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

27.0

1.264

24.5, 29.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.23

1.767

-4.69, 2.24

0.492

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-2.59

0.913

-4.38, -0.798

0.024

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

4.07

1.578

0.976, 7.16

0.035

Pseudo R square

0.023

satisfaction

(Intercept)

19.9

1.487

16.9, 22.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.69

2.079

-1.39, 6.76

0.203

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

2.79

1.092

0.648, 4.93

0.038

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.743

1.888

-4.44, 2.96

0.706

Pseudo R square

0.047

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

11.1

0.746

9.68, 12.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.857

1.043

-1.19, 2.90

0.415

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.47

1.440

-1.35, 4.29

0.354

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.631

2.434

-4.14, 5.40

0.804

Pseudo R square

0.047

mhc_social

(Intercept)

15.2

1.152

12.9, 17.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.509

1.610

-3.66, 2.65

0.754

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

2.88

1.884

-0.808, 6.58

0.143

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-3.89

3.218

-10.2, 2.42

0.242

Pseudo R square

0.042

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.6

1.352

18.9, 24.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.38

1.890

-2.32, 5.09

0.468

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.81

2.435

-2.96, 6.58

0.471

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.28

4.138

-10.4, 5.83

0.590

Pseudo R square

0.014

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.9

1.031

14.8, 18.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.188

1.442

-2.64, 3.01

0.897

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.400

0.653

-0.879, 1.68

0.559

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.89

1.129

-5.11, -0.682

0.037

Pseudo R square

0.015

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.4

0.734

12.0, 14.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.481

1.026

-1.53, 2.49

0.642

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.633

0.715

-2.03, 0.770

0.405

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.41

1.235

-1.01, 3.83

0.289

Pseudo R square

0.017

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.9

0.666

15.6, 18.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.552

0.931

-1.27, 2.38

0.556

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.27

0.795

-0.287, 2.83

0.150

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.33

1.369

-4.01, 1.36

0.361

Pseudo R square

0.018

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

12.2

0.710

10.8, 13.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.72

0.993

-0.227, 3.66

0.091

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.49

0.765

-0.013, 2.99

0.092

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.12

1.319

-3.70, 1.47

0.424

Pseudo R square

0.065

els

(Intercept)

29.0

1.242

26.6, 31.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.27

1.736

-1.13, 5.67

0.198

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

2.75

1.362

0.085, 5.42

0.080

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.47

2.347

-7.07, 2.13

0.325

Pseudo R square

0.042

social_connect

(Intercept)

27.0

2.236

22.7, 31.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.411

3.127

-6.54, 5.72

0.896

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.79

1.761

-1.66, 5.25

0.341

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

4.11

3.043

-1.85, 10.1

0.217

Pseudo R square

0.020

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.7

1.052

11.7, 15.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.922

1.470

-1.96, 3.80

0.534

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.55

0.847

-0.108, 3.21

0.110

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.865

1.464

-3.73, 2.00

0.573

Pseudo R square

0.015

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

16.2

0.803

14.6, 17.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.991

1.123

-1.21, 3.19

0.382

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.956

0.682

-0.382, 2.29

0.204

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.320

1.179

-2.63, 1.99

0.794

Pseudo R square

0.021

shs

(Intercept)

29.9

1.720

26.5, 33.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.91

2.405

-2.80, 6.63

0.431

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

2.32

0.945

0.464, 4.17

0.044

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.36

1.635

-4.57, 1.84

0.431

Pseudo R square

0.018

esteem

(Intercept)

12.7

0.271

12.1, 13.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.348

0.378

-1.09, 0.393

0.362

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.00

0.520

-0.020, 2.02

0.080

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.793

0.880

-2.52, 0.932

0.383

Pseudo R square

0.099

mlq_search

(Intercept)

15.2

0.736

13.7, 16.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.037

1.029

-1.98, 2.05

0.972

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.348

0.884

-1.38, 2.08

0.705

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.308

1.522

-2.68, 3.29

0.845

Pseudo R square

0.003

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

14.1

0.884

12.4, 15.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.916

1.235

-3.34, 1.51

0.463

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.258

0.568

-0.854, 1.37

0.663

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.70

0.981

-3.62, 0.226

0.127

Pseudo R square

0.027

mlq

(Intercept)

29.3

1.480

26.4, 32.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.879

2.069

-4.93, 3.18

0.673

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.596

1.288

-1.93, 3.12

0.657

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.34

2.224

-5.70, 3.02

0.565

Pseudo R square

0.008

empower

(Intercept)

20.1

0.950

18.2, 22.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.277

1.328

-2.88, 2.33

0.836

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.081

0.553

-1.16, 1.00

0.887

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.828

0.956

-2.70, 1.05

0.415

Pseudo R square

0.004

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

15.0

0.583

13.8, 16.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.043

0.815

-1.64, 1.55

0.958

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.546

0.933

-2.38, 1.28

0.576

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.974

1.596

-2.15, 4.10

0.559

Pseudo R square

0.006

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

12.0

0.661

10.7, 13.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.59

0.924

-3.40, 0.220

0.092

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.31

0.876

-3.02, 0.410

0.171

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.43

1.505

-1.52, 4.38

0.366

Pseudo R square

0.059

sss_affective

(Intercept)

9.95

0.929

8.13, 11.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.907

1.299

-3.45, 1.64

0.489

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.066

0.665

-1.24, 1.37

0.923

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.754

1.149

-3.01, 1.50

0.533

Pseudo R square

0.015

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

10.2

0.958

8.31, 12.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.37

1.339

-4.00, 1.25

0.311

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.53

1.048

-3.59, 0.522

0.185

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.500

1.807

-3.04, 4.04

0.789

Pseudo R square

0.031

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

7.48

0.892

5.73, 9.22

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.569

1.247

-1.88, 3.01

0.650

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.57

0.987

-0.368, 3.50

0.154

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.74

1.701

-6.08, 0.592

0.147

Pseudo R square

0.018

sss

(Intercept)

27.6

2.604

22.5, 32.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.71

3.641

-8.85, 5.43

0.641

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.068

2.057

-4.10, 3.96

0.975

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.30

3.554

-9.27, 4.66

0.537

Pseudo R square

0.009

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is moderate (conditional R2 = 0.14) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.38 (95% CI [2.86, 3.90], t(46) = 12.83, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.84], t(46) = 0.32, p = 0.747; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.69])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.30, 1.85], t(46) = 1.42, p = 0.156; Std. beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-0.24, 1.53])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-1.75, 1.84], t(46) = 0.05, p = 0.962; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-1.44, 1.52])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.90) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.43 (95% CI [17.29, 19.57], t(46) = 31.62, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-1.66, 1.53], t(46) = -0.08, p = 0.936; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.60])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.68, 95% CI [-1.61, 0.25], t(46) = -1.43, p = 0.152; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.10])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.54, 95% CI [-0.07, 3.15], t(46) = 1.88, p = 0.060; Std. beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-0.03, 1.22])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.90) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.82e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.24 (95% CI [28.21, 32.27], t(46) = 29.15, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [-1.94, 3.74], t(46) = 0.62, p = 0.536; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.78])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-1.16, 2.18], t(46) = 0.60, p = 0.550; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.45])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-2.84, 2.93], t(46) = 0.03, p = 0.976; Std. beta = 9.06e-03, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.61])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.54e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.29 (95% CI [11.42, 13.15], t(46) = 27.79, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-1.18, 1.24], t(46) = 0.05, p = 0.958; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.63])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-1.89, 0.72], t(46) = -0.88, p = 0.380; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.96, 0.37])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-1.56, 2.92], t(46) = 0.59, p = 0.554; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.79, 1.48])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.92) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.22e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.57 (95% CI [16.25, 18.89], t(46) = 26.12, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-1.64, 2.04], t(46) = 0.21, p = 0.831; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.68])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.90, 0.99], t(46) = 0.09, p = 0.926; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-1.56, 1.71], t(46) = 0.09, p = 0.930; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.57])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.92) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.16e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.24 (95% CI [11.90, 14.58], t(46) = 19.39, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-1.47, 2.27], t(46) = 0.42, p = 0.677; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.73])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.94, 1.01], t(46) = 0.07, p = 0.947; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-0.94, 2.42], t(46) = 0.86, p = 0.389; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.78])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.41) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.10. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.95 (95% CI [9.97, 11.94], t(46) = 21.82, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.54, 95% CI [-2.92, -0.17], t(46) = -2.20, p = 0.028; Std. beta = -0.65, 95% CI [-1.22, -0.07])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.97, 95% CI [-2.81, 0.87], t(46) = -1.03, p = 0.303; Std. beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-1.18, 0.37])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.01, 95% CI [-0.11, 6.13], t(46) = 1.89, p = 0.059; Std. beta = 1.26, 95% CI [-0.05, 2.57])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.86 (95% CI [24.44, 33.28], t(46) = 12.80, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.60, 95% CI [-4.58, 7.77], t(46) = 0.51, p = 0.612; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.77])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.27, 95% CI [-5.66, 3.12], t(46) = -0.57, p = 0.570; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.64, 95% CI [-5.93, 9.22], t(46) = 0.43, p = 0.670; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.92])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.95) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 23.43 (95% CI [21.28, 25.58], t(46) = 21.36, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.88, 95% CI [-3.89, 2.12], t(46) = -0.58, p = 0.565; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.82, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.55, 95% CI [-2.76, -0.34], t(46) = -2.51, p = 0.012; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.58, -0.07])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.37, 95% CI [-0.72, 3.47], t(46) = 1.29, p = 0.198; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.73])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.93) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.95 (95% CI [24.48, 29.43], t(46) = 21.33, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.23, 95% CI [-4.69, 2.24], t(46) = -0.69, p = 0.488; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.84, 0.40])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.59, 95% CI [-4.38, -0.80], t(46) = -2.83, p = 0.005; Std. beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-0.79, -0.14])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 4.07, 95% CI [0.98, 7.16], t(46) = 2.58, p = 0.010; Std. beta = 0.73, 95% CI [0.18, 1.29])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.92) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.86 (95% CI [16.94, 22.77], t(46) = 13.35, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.69, 95% CI [-1.39, 6.76], t(46) = 1.29, p = 0.196; Std. beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.99])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.79, 95% CI [0.65, 4.93], t(46) = 2.55, p = 0.011; Std. beta = 0.41, 95% CI [0.09, 0.72])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.74, 95% CI [-4.44, 2.96], t(46) = -0.39, p = 0.694; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.43])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.32) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.14 (95% CI [9.68, 12.60], t(46) = 14.94, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-1.19, 2.90], t(46) = 0.82, p = 0.411; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.84])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.47, 95% CI [-1.35, 4.29], t(46) = 1.02, p = 0.307; Std. beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.39, 1.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-4.14, 5.40], t(46) = 0.26, p = 0.795; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-1.20, 1.57])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.56) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.19 (95% CI [12.93, 17.45], t(46) = 13.19, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-3.66, 2.65], t(46) = -0.32, p = 0.752; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.49])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.88, 95% CI [-0.81, 6.58], t(46) = 1.53, p = 0.126; Std. beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.15, 1.21])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.89, 95% CI [-10.20, 2.42], t(46) = -1.21, p = 0.227; Std. beta = -0.72, 95% CI [-1.88, 0.45])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.42) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.57 (95% CI [18.92, 24.22], t(46) = 15.96, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.38, 95% CI [-2.32, 5.09], t(46) = 0.73, p = 0.464; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.84])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.81, 95% CI [-2.96, 6.58], t(46) = 0.74, p = 0.458; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.49, 1.08])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.28, 95% CI [-10.39, 5.83], t(46) = -0.55, p = 0.582; Std. beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-1.71, 0.96])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.94) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.86 (95% CI [14.84, 18.88], t(46) = 16.34, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-2.64, 3.01], t(46) = 0.13, p = 0.896; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.68])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.88, 1.68], t(46) = 0.61, p = 0.540; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.89, 95% CI [-5.11, -0.68], t(46) = -2.56, p = 0.010; Std. beta = -0.65, 95% CI [-1.15, -0.15])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.86) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.43 (95% CI [11.99, 14.87], t(46) = 18.29, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-1.53, 2.49], t(46) = 0.47, p = 0.640; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.77])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-2.03, 0.77], t(46) = -0.88, p = 0.377; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.41, 95% CI [-1.01, 3.83], t(46) = 1.14, p = 0.254; Std. beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.31, 1.18])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.86 (95% CI [15.55, 18.16], t(46) = 25.32, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-1.27, 2.38], t(46) = 0.59, p = 0.553; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.80])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.27, 95% CI [-0.29, 2.83], t(46) = 1.60, p = 0.110; Std. beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.96])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.33, 95% CI [-4.01, 1.36], t(46) = -0.97, p = 0.332; Std. beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-1.36, 0.46])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.19 (95% CI [10.80, 13.58], t(46) = 17.17, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.72, 95% CI [-0.23, 3.66], t(46) = 1.73, p = 0.083; Std. beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.11])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.49, 95% CI [-0.01, 2.99], t(46) = 1.94, p = 0.052; Std. beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-3.81e-03, 0.91])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.12, 95% CI [-3.70, 1.47], t(46) = -0.85, p = 0.397; Std. beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-1.12, 0.45])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.05 (95% CI [26.61, 31.48], t(46) = 23.40, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.27, 95% CI [-1.13, 5.67], t(46) = 1.31, p = 0.191; Std. beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.20, 1.00])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.75, 95% CI [0.08, 5.42], t(46) = 2.02, p = 0.043; Std. beta = 0.48, 95% CI [0.01, 0.95])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.47, 95% CI [-7.07, 2.13], t(46) = -1.05, p = 0.292; Std. beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-1.25, 0.37])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.91) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.05 (95% CI [22.66, 31.43], t(46) = 12.09, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-6.54, 5.72], t(46) = -0.13, p = 0.895; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.59])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.79, 95% CI [-1.66, 5.25], t(46) = 1.02, p = 0.308; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.54])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 4.11, 95% CI [-1.85, 10.08], t(46) = 1.35, p = 0.177; Std. beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.19, 1.03])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.91) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.71 (95% CI [11.65, 15.78], t(46) = 13.04, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-1.96, 3.80], t(46) = 0.63, p = 0.531; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.81])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.55, 95% CI [-0.11, 3.21], t(46) = 1.83, p = 0.067; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.69])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.86, 95% CI [-3.73, 2.00], t(46) = -0.59, p = 0.555; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.43])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.89) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.19 (95% CI [14.62, 17.76], t(46) = 20.16, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [-1.21, 3.19], t(46) = 0.88, p = 0.377; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.90])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.96, 95% CI [-0.38, 2.29], t(46) = 1.40, p = 0.161; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.64])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-2.63, 1.99], t(46) = -0.27, p = 0.786; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.56])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.96) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.90 (95% CI [26.53, 33.28], t(46) = 17.38, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.91, 95% CI [-2.80, 6.63], t(46) = 0.80, p = 0.426; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.86])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.32, 95% CI [0.46, 4.17], t(46) = 2.45, p = 0.014; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [0.06, 0.54])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.36, 95% CI [-4.57, 1.84], t(46) = -0.83, p = 0.404; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.24])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.36) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.10. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.67 (95% CI [12.14, 13.20], t(46) = 46.79, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-1.09, 0.39], t(46) = -0.92, p = 0.357; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.86, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-0.02, 2.02], t(46) = 1.92, p = 0.055; Std. beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-0.02, 1.59])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.79, 95% CI [-2.52, 0.93], t(46) = -0.90, p = 0.367; Std. beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-1.98, 0.73])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.95e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.19 (95% CI [13.75, 16.63], t(46) = 20.64, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-1.98, 2.05], t(46) = 0.04, p = 0.971; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.64])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-1.38, 2.08], t(46) = 0.39, p = 0.694; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.64])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-2.68, 3.29], t(46) = 0.20, p = 0.840; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.83, 1.02])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.94) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.14 (95% CI [12.41, 15.87], t(46) = 16.01, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.92, 95% CI [-3.34, 1.51], t(46) = -0.74, p = 0.459; Std. beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.87, 0.39])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.85, 1.37], t(46) = 0.46, p = 0.649; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.36])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.70, 95% CI [-3.62, 0.23], t(46) = -1.73, p = 0.084; Std. beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-0.95, 0.06])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.89) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.97e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.33 (95% CI [26.43, 32.23], t(46) = 19.82, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.88, 95% CI [-4.93, 3.18], t(46) = -0.42, p = 0.671; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.49])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-1.93, 3.12], t(46) = 0.46, p = 0.643; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.48])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.34, 95% CI [-5.70, 3.02], t(46) = -0.60, p = 0.546; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.88, 0.47])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.95) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.09e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 20.10 (95% CI [18.23, 21.96], t(46) = 21.16, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-2.88, 2.33], t(46) = -0.21, p = 0.835; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.57])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.16, 1.00], t(46) = -0.15, p = 0.883; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.83, 95% CI [-2.70, 1.05], t(46) = -0.87, p = 0.387; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.26])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.57) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.72e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.95 (95% CI [13.81, 16.10], t(46) = 25.64, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-1.64, 1.55], t(46) = -0.05, p = 0.958; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.60])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.55, 95% CI [-2.38, 1.28], t(46) = -0.59, p = 0.558; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.92, 0.50])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-2.15, 4.10], t(46) = 0.61, p = 0.542; Std. beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.84, 1.60])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.00 (95% CI [10.70, 13.30], t(46) = 18.16, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.59, 95% CI [-3.40, 0.22], t(46) = -1.72, p = 0.085; Std. beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-1.12, 0.07])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.31, 95% CI [-3.02, 0.41], t(46) = -1.49, p = 0.136; Std. beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-0.99, 0.13])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.43, 95% CI [-1.52, 4.38], t(46) = 0.95, p = 0.341; Std. beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.50, 1.44])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.93) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.95 (95% CI [8.13, 11.77], t(46) = 10.71, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.91, 95% CI [-3.45, 1.64], t(46) = -0.70, p = 0.485; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.81, 0.39])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-1.24, 1.37], t(46) = 0.10, p = 0.921; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.75, 95% CI [-3.01, 1.50], t(46) = -0.66, p = 0.512; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.35])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.19 (95% CI [8.31, 12.07], t(46) = 10.64, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.37, 95% CI [-4.00, 1.25], t(46) = -1.02, p = 0.305; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.91, 0.29])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.53, 95% CI [-3.59, 0.52], t(46) = -1.46, p = 0.144; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.82, 0.12])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-3.04, 4.04], t(46) = 0.28, p = 0.782; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.92])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 7.48 (95% CI [5.73, 9.22], t(46) = 8.38, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-1.88, 3.01], t(46) = 0.46, p = 0.648; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.75])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.57, 95% CI [-0.37, 3.50], t(46) = 1.59, p = 0.112; Std. beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.87])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.74, 95% CI [-6.08, 0.59], t(46) = -1.61, p = 0.107; Std. beta = -0.69, 95% CI [-1.52, 0.15])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.91) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.96e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.62 (95% CI [22.52, 32.72], t(46) = 10.61, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.71, 95% CI [-8.85, 5.43], t(46) = -0.47, p = 0.639; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.46])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-4.10, 3.96], t(46) = -0.03, p = 0.974; Std. beta = -5.75e-03, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.30, 95% CI [-9.27, 4.66], t(46) = -0.65, p = 0.517; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.79, 0.40])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

172.360

178.214

-83.180

166.360

recovery_stage_a

random

6

174.923

186.630

-81.461

162.923

3.437

3

0.329

recovery_stage_b

null

3

240.118

245.972

-117.059

234.118

recovery_stage_b

random

6

242.319

254.026

-115.159

230.319

3.799

3

0.284

ras_confidence

null

3

297.385

303.238

-145.692

291.385

ras_confidence

random

6

302.441

314.148

-145.220

290.441

0.944

3

0.815

ras_willingness

null

3

219.267

225.121

-106.634

213.267

ras_willingness

random

6

224.287

235.995

-106.144

212.287

0.980

3

0.806

ras_goal

null

3

249.066

254.920

-121.533

243.066

ras_goal

random

6

254.984

266.692

-121.492

242.984

0.082

3

0.994

ras_reliance

null

3

252.442

258.296

-123.221

246.442

ras_reliance

random

6

256.799

268.506

-122.399

244.799

1.643

3

0.650

ras_domination

null

3

241.582

247.435

-117.791

235.582

ras_domination

random

6

240.843

252.551

-114.422

228.843

6.739

3

0.081

symptom

null

3

381.230

387.084

-187.615

375.230

symptom

random

6

386.521

398.229

-187.261

374.521

0.709

3

0.871

slof_work

null

3

301.065

306.919

-147.532

295.065

slof_work

random

6

301.475

313.183

-144.738

289.475

5.590

3

0.133

slof_relationship

null

3

321.924

327.778

-157.962

315.924

slof_relationship

random

6

320.700

332.407

-154.350

308.700

7.224

3

0.065

satisfaction

null

3

341.122

346.976

-167.561

335.122

satisfaction

random

6

337.934

349.641

-162.967

325.934

9.188

3

0.027

mhc_emotional

null

3

278.581

284.435

-136.291

272.581

mhc_emotional

random

6

282.337

294.045

-135.169

270.337

2.244

3

0.523

mhc_social

null

3

322.403

328.257

-158.202

316.403

mhc_social

random

6

325.241

336.948

-156.620

313.241

3.162

3

0.367

mhc_psychological

null

3

338.302

344.155

-166.151

332.302

mhc_psychological

random

6

343.341

355.049

-165.671

331.341

0.960

3

0.811

resilisnce

null

3

297.500

303.354

-145.750

291.500

resilisnce

random

6

297.210

308.917

-142.605

285.210

6.290

3

0.098

social_provision

null

3

265.511

271.365

-129.755

259.511

social_provision

random

6

269.512

281.219

-128.756

257.512

1.999

3

0.573

els_value_living

null

3

259.857

265.711

-126.929

253.857

els_value_living

random

6

262.892

274.600

-125.446

250.892

2.965

3

0.397

els_life_fulfill

null

3

268.337

274.191

-131.169

262.337

els_life_fulfill

random

6

267.810

279.518

-127.905

255.810

6.527

3

0.089

els

null

3

325.782

331.636

-159.891

319.782

els

random

6

326.225

337.933

-157.113

314.225

5.557

3

0.135

social_connect

null

3

380.741

386.595

-187.371

374.741

social_connect

random

6

381.592

393.299

-184.796

369.592

5.150

3

0.161

shs_agency

null

3

301.757

307.610

-147.878

295.757

shs_agency

random

6

303.510

315.218

-145.755

291.510

4.246

3

0.236

shs_pathway

null

3

273.745

279.599

-133.872

267.745

shs_pathway

random

6

276.415

288.122

-132.207

264.415

3.330

3

0.344

shs

null

3

348.659

354.513

-171.330

342.659

shs

random

6

347.883

359.590

-167.941

335.883

6.777

3

0.079

esteem

null

3

177.000

182.854

-85.500

171.000

esteem

random

6

176.974

188.681

-82.487

164.974

6.026

3

0.110

mlq_search

null

3

267.887

273.740

-130.943

261.887

mlq_search

random

6

273.434

285.141

-130.717

261.434

0.453

3

0.929

mlq_presence

null

3

279.560

285.414

-136.780

273.560

mlq_presence

random

6

281.388

293.095

-134.694

269.388

4.172

3

0.243

mlq

null

3

335.174

341.028

-164.587

329.174

mlq

random

6

340.423

352.130

-164.212

328.423

0.751

3

0.861

empower

null

3

282.824

288.677

-138.412

276.824

empower

random

6

287.142

298.850

-137.571

275.142

1.681

3

0.641

ismi_resistance

null

3

248.621

254.475

-121.311

242.621

ismi_resistance

random

6

254.028

265.735

-121.014

242.028

0.594

3

0.898

ismi_discrimation

null

3

262.717

268.570

-128.358

256.717

ismi_discrimation

random

6

263.935

275.642

-125.967

251.935

4.782

3

0.188

sss_affective

null

3

283.671

289.525

-138.836

277.671

sss_affective

random

6

288.539

300.247

-138.270

276.539

1.132

3

0.769

sss_behavior

null

3

296.937

302.790

-145.468

290.937

sss_behavior

random

6

299.215

310.922

-143.607

287.215

3.722

3

0.293

sss_cognitive

null

3

289.551

295.405

-141.776

283.551

sss_cognitive

random

6

292.006

303.713

-140.003

280.006

3.546

3

0.315

sss

null

3

392.465

398.318

-193.232

386.465

sss

random

6

397.476

409.183

-192.738

385.476

0.989

3

0.804

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

21

3.38 ± 1.21

22

3.50 ± 1.21

0.748

-0.103

recovery_stage_a

2nd

6

4.16 ± 1.32

-0.672

3

4.32 ± 1.34

-0.710

0.864

-0.141

recovery_stage_b

1st

21

18.43 ± 2.67

22

18.36 ± 2.67

0.937

0.078

recovery_stage_b

2nd

6

17.75 ± 1.74

0.812

3

19.22 ± 1.47

-1.028

0.193

-1.762

ras_confidence

1st

21

30.24 ± 4.75

22

31.14 ± 4.75

0.539

-0.598

ras_confidence

2nd

6

30.75 ± 3.10

-0.339

3

31.69 ± 2.63

-0.368

0.637

-0.627

ras_willingness

1st

21

12.29 ± 2.03

22

12.32 ± 2.03

0.958

-0.026

ras_willingness

2nd

6

11.70 ± 1.79

0.472

3

12.41 ± 1.74

-0.073

0.574

-0.571

ras_goal

1st

21

17.57 ± 3.08

22

17.77 ± 3.08

0.832

-0.238

ras_goal

2nd

6

17.62 ± 1.93

-0.053

3

17.89 ± 1.59

-0.139

0.822

-0.324

ras_reliance

1st

21

13.24 ± 3.13

22

13.64 ± 3.13

0.679

-0.457

ras_reliance

2nd

6

13.27 ± 1.97

-0.038

3

14.41 ± 1.62

-0.886

0.363

-1.304

ras_domination

1st

21

10.95 ± 2.30

22

9.41 ± 2.30

0.033

0.829

ras_domination

2nd

6

9.98 ± 2.37

0.521

3

11.45 ± 2.38

-1.097

0.390

-0.788

symptom

1st

21

28.86 ± 10.33

22

30.45 ± 10.33

0.615

-0.401

symptom

2nd

6

27.58 ± 7.25

0.319

3

30.83 ± 6.43

-0.093

0.501

-0.813

slof_work

1st

21

23.43 ± 5.03

22

22.55 ± 5.03

0.568

0.820

slof_work

2nd

6

21.88 ± 2.98

1.438

3

22.37 ± 2.33

0.162

0.788

-0.456

slof_relationship

1st

21

26.95 ± 5.79

22

25.73 ± 5.79

0.492

0.764

slof_relationship

2nd

6

24.37 ± 3.63

1.614

3

27.21 ± 2.99

-0.924

0.220

-1.774

satisfaction

1st

21

19.86 ± 6.82

22

22.55 ± 6.82

0.203

-1.401

satisfaction

2nd

6

22.65 ± 4.30

-1.453

3

24.59 ± 3.55

-1.066

0.476

-1.014

mhc_emotional

1st

21

11.14 ± 3.42

22

12.00 ± 3.42

0.415

-0.297

mhc_emotional

2nd

6

12.61 ± 3.59

-0.508

3

14.10 ± 3.63

-0.727

0.564

-0.515

mhc_social

1st

21

15.19 ± 5.28

22

14.68 ± 5.28

0.754

0.143

mhc_social

2nd

6

18.07 ± 4.93

-0.809

3

13.67 ± 4.86

0.282

0.216

1.234

mhc_psychological

1st

21

21.57 ± 6.20

22

22.95 ± 6.20

0.468

-0.292

mhc_psychological

2nd

6

23.38 ± 6.20

-0.381

3

22.49 ± 6.20

0.099

0.840

0.188

resilisnce

1st

21

16.86 ± 4.73

22

17.05 ± 4.73

0.897

-0.165

resilisnce

2nd

6

17.26 ± 2.87

-0.350

3

14.55 ± 2.30

2.183

0.134

2.368

social_provision

1st

21

13.43 ± 3.36

22

13.91 ± 3.36

0.642

-0.378

social_provision

2nd

6

12.80 ± 2.34

0.497

3

14.68 ± 2.07

-0.609

0.229

-1.484

els_value_living

1st

21

16.86 ± 3.05

22

17.41 ± 3.05

0.556

-0.385

els_value_living

2nd

6

18.13 ± 2.34

-0.886

3

17.35 ± 2.16

0.038

0.628

0.540

els_life_fulfill

1st

21

12.19 ± 3.25

22

13.91 ± 3.25

0.091

-1.255

els_life_fulfill

2nd

6

13.68 ± 2.37

-1.086

3

14.28 ± 2.14

-0.270

0.705

-0.440

els

1st

21

29.05 ± 5.69

22

31.32 ± 5.69

0.198

-0.931

els

2nd

6

31.80 ± 4.18

-1.129

3

31.60 ± 3.79

-0.116

0.943

0.082

social_connect

1st

21

27.05 ± 10.25

22

26.64 ± 10.25

0.896

0.133

social_connect

2nd

6

28.84 ± 6.60

-0.579

3

32.54 ± 5.54

-1.904

0.383

-1.193

shs_agency

1st

21

13.71 ± 4.82

22

14.64 ± 4.82

0.534

-0.618

shs_agency

2nd

6

15.27 ± 3.13

-1.040

3

15.32 ± 2.64

-0.461

0.977

-0.039

shs_pathway

1st

21

16.19 ± 3.68

22

17.18 ± 3.68

0.382

-0.823

shs_pathway

2nd

6

17.15 ± 2.43

-0.793

3

17.82 ± 2.08

-0.527

0.670

-0.557

shs

1st

21

29.90 ± 7.88

22

31.82 ± 7.88

0.431

-1.159

shs

2nd

6

32.22 ± 4.65

-1.404

3

32.77 ± 3.63

-0.577

0.847

-0.332

esteem

1st

21

12.67 ± 1.24

22

12.32 ± 1.24

0.362

0.334

esteem

2nd

6

13.67 ± 1.30

-0.959

3

12.52 ± 1.31

-0.198

0.226

1.095

mlq_search

1st

21

15.19 ± 3.37

22

15.23 ± 3.37

0.972

-0.023

mlq_search

2nd

6

15.54 ± 2.60

-0.218

3

15.88 ± 2.40

-0.411

0.846

-0.216

mlq_presence

1st

21

14.14 ± 4.05

22

13.23 ± 4.05

0.463

0.921

mlq_presence

2nd

6

14.40 ± 2.47

-0.260

3

11.79 ± 1.98

1.449

0.095

2.630

mlq

1st

21

29.33 ± 6.78

22

28.45 ± 6.78

0.673

0.386

mlq

2nd

6

29.93 ± 4.52

-0.262

3

27.71 ± 3.88

0.328

0.451

0.976

empower

1st

21

20.10 ± 4.35

22

19.82 ± 4.35

0.836

0.287

empower

2nd

6

20.01 ± 2.60

0.084

3

18.91 ± 2.04

0.941

0.490

1.144

ismi_resistance

1st

21

14.95 ± 2.67

22

14.91 ± 2.67

0.958

0.025

ismi_resistance

2nd

6

14.41 ± 2.46

0.311

3

15.34 ± 2.41

-0.243

0.593

-0.529

ismi_discrimation

1st

21

12.00 ± 3.03

22

10.41 ± 3.03

0.092

0.996

ismi_discrimation

2nd

6

10.69 ± 2.46

0.817

3

10.54 ± 2.33

-0.079

0.926

0.099

sss_affective

1st

21

9.95 ± 4.26

22

9.05 ± 4.26

0.489

0.777

sss_affective

2nd

6

10.02 ± 2.66

-0.057

3

8.36 ± 2.19

0.589

0.327

1.423

sss_behavior

1st

21

10.19 ± 4.39

22

8.82 ± 4.39

0.311

0.731

sss_behavior

2nd

6

8.66 ± 3.22

0.816

3

7.79 ± 2.92

0.550

0.687

0.464

sss_cognitive

1st

21

7.48 ± 4.09

22

8.05 ± 4.09

0.650

-0.322

sss_cognitive

2nd

6

9.04 ± 3.02

-0.885

3

6.87 ± 2.74

0.664

0.291

1.227

sss

1st

21

27.62 ± 11.93

22

25.91 ± 11.93

0.641

0.472

sss

2nd

6

27.55 ± 7.69

0.019

3

23.54 ± 6.46

0.654

0.417

1.107

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(47.89) = 0.32, p = 0.748, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.62 to 0.86)

2st

t(45.85) = 0.17, p = 0.864, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.74 to 2.06)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(41.72) = -0.08, p = 0.937, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.71 to 1.58)

2st

t(29.06) = 1.33, p = 0.193, Cohen d = -1.76, 95% CI (-0.79 to 3.74)

ras_confidence

1st

t(41.73) = 0.62, p = 0.539, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (-2.03 to 3.83)

2st

t(28.75) = 0.48, p = 0.637, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (-3.10 to 4.99)

ras_willingness

1st

t(44.08) = 0.05, p = 0.958, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.21 to 1.28)

2st

t(19.87) = 0.57, p = 0.574, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-1.88 to 3.30)

ras_goal

1st

t(41.55) = 0.21, p = 0.832, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-1.70 to 2.10)

2st

t(33.61) = 0.23, p = 0.822, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-2.18 to 2.73)

ras_reliance

1st

t(41.56) = 0.42, p = 0.679, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-1.53 to 2.33)

2st

t(33.06) = 0.92, p = 0.363, Cohen d = -1.30, 95% CI (-1.37 to 3.65)

ras_domination

1st

t(46.51) = -2.20, p = 0.033, Cohen d = 0.83, 95% CI (-2.96 to -0.13)

2st

t(29.40) = 0.87, p = 0.390, Cohen d = -0.79, 95% CI (-1.97 to 4.90)

symptom

1st

t(42.12) = 0.51, p = 0.615, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-4.76 to 7.96)

2st

t(23.36) = 0.68, p = 0.501, Cohen d = -0.81, 95% CI (-6.57 to 13.05)

slof_work

1st

t(41.33) = -0.58, p = 0.568, Cohen d = 0.82, 95% CI (-3.98 to 2.21)

2st

t(42.09) = 0.27, p = 0.788, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-3.17 to 4.15)

slof_relationship

1st

t(41.56) = -0.69, p = 0.492, Cohen d = 0.76, 95% CI (-4.79 to 2.34)

2st

t(33.31) = 1.25, p = 0.220, Cohen d = -1.77, 95% CI (-1.79 to 7.48)

satisfaction

1st

t(41.58) = 1.29, p = 0.203, Cohen d = -1.40, 95% CI (-1.51 to 6.89)

2st

t(32.69) = 0.72, p = 0.476, Cohen d = -1.01, 95% CI (-3.55 to 7.44)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(46.95) = 0.82, p = 0.415, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-1.24 to 2.95)

2st

t(33.11) = 0.58, p = 0.564, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-3.71 to 6.69)

mhc_social

1st

t(44.81) = -0.32, p = 0.754, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-3.75 to 2.74)

2st

t(21.40) = -1.27, p = 0.216, Cohen d = 1.23, 95% CI (-11.57 to 2.77)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(45.95) = 0.73, p = 0.468, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-2.42 to 5.19)

2st

t(25.90) = -0.20, p = 0.840, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-9.91 to 8.13)

resilisnce

1st

t(41.42) = 0.13, p = 0.897, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-2.72 to 3.10)

2st

t(38.17) = -1.53, p = 0.134, Cohen d = 2.37, 95% CI (-6.29 to 0.88)

social_provision

1st

t(42.07) = 0.47, p = 0.642, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-1.59 to 2.55)

2st

t(23.82) = 1.24, p = 0.229, Cohen d = -1.48, 95% CI (-1.27 to 5.04)

els_value_living

1st

t(42.72) = 0.59, p = 0.556, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-1.33 to 2.43)

2st

t(20.19) = -0.49, p = 0.628, Cohen d = 0.54, 95% CI (-4.05 to 2.50)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(42.35) = 1.73, p = 0.091, Cohen d = -1.26, 95% CI (-0.28 to 3.72)

2st

t(21.70) = 0.38, p = 0.705, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-2.66 to 3.86)

els

1st

t(42.40) = 1.31, p = 0.198, Cohen d = -0.93, 95% CI (-1.23 to 5.77)

2st

t(21.39) = -0.07, p = 0.943, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-5.96 to 5.56)

social_connect

1st

t(41.67) = -0.13, p = 0.896, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-6.72 to 5.90)

2st

t(30.20) = 0.89, p = 0.383, Cohen d = -1.19, 95% CI (-4.84 to 12.24)

shs_agency

1st

t(41.70) = 0.63, p = 0.534, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-2.05 to 3.89)

2st

t(29.41) = 0.03, p = 0.977, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-4.00 to 4.12)

shs_pathway

1st

t(41.79) = 0.88, p = 0.382, Cohen d = -0.82, 95% CI (-1.27 to 3.26)

2st

t(27.66) = 0.43, p = 0.670, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-2.52 to 3.86)

shs

1st

t(41.31) = 0.80, p = 0.431, Cohen d = -1.16, 95% CI (-2.94 to 6.77)

2st

t(42.77) = 0.19, p = 0.847, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-5.15 to 6.25)

esteem

1st

t(46.89) = -0.92, p = 0.362, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-1.11 to 0.41)

2st

t(32.48) = -1.23, p = 0.226, Cohen d = 1.10, 95% CI (-3.03 to 0.74)

mlq_search

1st

t(42.74) = 0.04, p = 0.972, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-2.04 to 2.11)

2st

t(20.13) = 0.20, p = 0.846, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-3.30 to 3.98)

mlq_presence

1st

t(41.43) = -0.74, p = 0.463, Cohen d = 0.92, 95% CI (-3.41 to 1.58)

2st

t(37.64) = -1.72, p = 0.095, Cohen d = 2.63, 95% CI (-5.70 to 0.47)

mlq

1st

t(41.83) = -0.42, p = 0.673, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-5.05 to 3.30)

2st

t(26.93) = -0.77, p = 0.451, Cohen d = 0.98, 95% CI (-8.17 to 3.73)

empower

1st

t(41.35) = -0.21, p = 0.836, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-2.96 to 2.40)

2st

t(41.03) = -0.70, p = 0.490, Cohen d = 1.14, 95% CI (-4.31 to 2.10)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(44.59) = -0.05, p = 0.958, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.69 to 1.60)

2st

t(20.85) = 0.54, p = 0.593, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-2.64 to 4.50)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(43.21) = -1.72, p = 0.092, Cohen d = 1.00, 95% CI (-3.45 to 0.27)

2st

t(19.42) = -0.09, p = 0.926, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-3.67 to 3.35)

sss_affective

1st

t(41.55) = -0.70, p = 0.489, Cohen d = 0.78, 95% CI (-3.53 to 1.72)

2st

t(33.66) = -1.00, p = 0.327, Cohen d = 1.42, 95% CI (-5.05 to 1.73)

sss_behavior

1st

t(42.40) = -1.02, p = 0.311, Cohen d = 0.73, 95% CI (-4.07 to 1.33)

2st

t(21.43) = -0.41, p = 0.687, Cohen d = 0.46, 95% CI (-5.31 to 3.57)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(42.43) = 0.46, p = 0.650, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-1.95 to 3.09)

2st

t(21.24) = -1.08, p = 0.291, Cohen d = 1.23, 95% CI (-6.34 to 1.99)

sss

1st

t(41.67) = -0.47, p = 0.641, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-9.06 to 5.64)

2st

t(30.09) = -0.82, p = 0.417, Cohen d = 1.11, 95% CI (-13.97 to 5.94)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(33.55) = 1.01, p = 0.638, Cohen d = -0.71, 95% CI (-0.83 to 2.46)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(7.67) = 1.27, p = 0.484, Cohen d = -1.03, 95% CI (-0.72 to 2.44)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(7.69) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-2.28 to 3.38)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(10.87) = 0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-2.07 to 2.25)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(7.50) = 0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.49 to 1.72)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(7.52) = 1.09, p = 0.618, Cohen d = -0.89, 95% CI (-0.88 to 2.42)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(18.37) = 1.46, p = 0.325, Cohen d = -1.10, 95% CI (-0.90 to 4.98)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(8.09) = 0.12, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-7.04 to 7.78)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(7.29) = -0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-2.23 to 1.88)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(7.51) = 1.14, p = 0.580, Cohen d = -0.92, 95% CI (-1.55 to 4.52)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(7.53) = 1.31, p = 0.455, Cohen d = -1.07, 95% CI (-1.59 to 5.68)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(21.10) = 0.98, p = 0.679, Cohen d = -0.73, 95% CI (-2.37 to 6.57)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(12.40) = -0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-7.05 to 5.04)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(15.85) = -0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-8.16 to 7.22)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(7.38) = -2.69, p = 0.060, Cohen d = 2.18, 95% CI (-4.67 to -0.32)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(8.04) = 0.75, p = 0.944, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (-1.59 to 3.14)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(8.79) = -0.05, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-2.67 to 2.56)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(8.35) = 0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-2.15 to 2.89)

els

1st vs 2st

t(8.41) = 0.14, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-4.21 to 4.77)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(7.62) = 2.35, p = 0.097, Cohen d = -1.90, 95% CI (0.06 to 11.76)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(7.65) = 0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-2.12 to 3.50)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(7.74) = 0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-1.63 to 2.90)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(7.28) = 0.71, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-2.20 to 4.10)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(20.63) = 0.27, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.41 to 1.82)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(8.82) = 0.51, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-2.25 to 3.56)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(7.39) = -1.78, p = 0.231, Cohen d = 1.45, 95% CI (-3.33 to 0.45)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(7.78) = -0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-5.02 to 3.52)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(7.32) = -1.16, p = 0.567, Cohen d = 0.94, 95% CI (-2.75 to 0.93)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(11.92) = 0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-2.57 to 3.43)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(9.45) = 0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-2.74 to 2.99)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(7.50) = -0.73, p = 0.981, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-2.90 to 1.52)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(8.40) = -0.68, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-4.49 to 2.42)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(8.45) = -0.83, p = 0.864, Cohen d = 0.66, 95% CI (-4.43 to 2.08)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(7.62) = -0.81, p = 0.889, Cohen d = 0.65, 95% CI (-9.20 to 4.46)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(24.21) = 1.32, p = 0.401, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (-0.44 to 1.99)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(7.55) = -1.41, p = 0.394, Cohen d = 0.81, 95% CI (-1.80 to 0.44)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(7.56) = 0.59, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-1.50 to 2.52)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(9.99) = -0.84, p = 0.841, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-2.14 to 0.97)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(7.41) = 0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.09 to 1.18)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(7.42) = 0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.14 to 1.20)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(15.01) = -0.96, p = 0.702, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-3.11 to 1.18)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(7.88) = -0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-6.55 to 4.00)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(7.24) = -2.50, p = 0.080, Cohen d = 1.44, 95% CI (-3.01 to -0.09)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(7.42) = -2.81, p = 0.049, Cohen d = 1.61, 95% CI (-4.74 to -0.43)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(7.43) = 2.53, p = 0.075, Cohen d = -1.45, 95% CI (0.21 to 5.37)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(16.69) = 0.95, p = 0.711, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-1.80 to 4.74)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(11.08) = 1.45, p = 0.348, Cohen d = -0.81, 95% CI (-1.48 to 7.25)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(13.40) = 0.70, p = 0.995, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-3.78 to 7.39)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(7.31) = 0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-1.14 to 1.94)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(7.84) = -0.87, p = 0.821, Cohen d = 0.50, 95% CI (-2.32 to 1.05)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(8.43) = 1.56, p = 0.312, Cohen d = -0.89, 95% CI (-0.59 to 3.14)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(8.08) = 1.90, p = 0.186, Cohen d = -1.09, 95% CI (-0.31 to 3.29)

els

1st vs 2st

t(8.13) = 1.98, p = 0.165, Cohen d = -1.13, 95% CI (-0.45 to 5.95)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(7.51) = 1.01, p = 0.690, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-2.36 to 5.95)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(7.53) = 1.81, p = 0.220, Cohen d = -1.04, 95% CI (-0.44 to 3.55)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(7.60) = 1.38, p = 0.412, Cohen d = -0.79, 95% CI (-0.65 to 2.56)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(7.23) = 2.44, p = 0.088, Cohen d = -1.40, 95% CI (0.08 to 4.55)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(16.41) = 1.79, p = 0.184, Cohen d = -0.96, 95% CI (-0.18 to 2.18)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(8.45) = 0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-1.73 to 2.42)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(7.32) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.08 to 1.60)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(7.64) = 0.46, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-2.44 to 3.63)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(7.26) = -0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.39 to 1.22)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(10.73) = -0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-2.71 to 1.62)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(8.94) = -1.44, p = 0.366, Cohen d = 0.82, 95% CI (-3.36 to 0.74)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(7.41) = 0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.50 to 1.63)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(8.13) = -1.43, p = 0.380, Cohen d = 0.82, 95% CI (-4.00 to 0.93)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(8.16) = 1.55, p = 0.317, Cohen d = -0.89, 95% CI (-0.75 to 3.89)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(7.51) = -0.03, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-4.92 to 4.78)

Plot

Clinical significance